• 1

    posted a message on Firebird 101: Solo Wizard Greater Rifts
    Firebird is generally pretty boring, but as far as higher tier GR go and pushing the leaderboard it actually requires a great amount of skill and tactical gameplay. On that front I really enjoy it. I think Blizzard really put itself in a box with the mechanic though, because the damage output is so consistent that you basically just cast fire on everything and let things burn until death. It's really hard to offer styles of play that can be as competitively consistent.

    My hope is that whoever is responsible for balancing the Wizard class will really take a look at Delseres, Vyrs, and Tal Rashas to really hone in and offer four uniquely different yet balanced levels of gameplay. Find a way to make it so that no set really outshines the other and start with Firebird as a base. Once you hone in on that, then maybe branch further out with newer sets and balancing some legendaries in the mix.

    The Tal's suggestion in the post above mine seems like a no brainer. All elemental damage should equal your highest. That alone would go a huge way to improve the set. Also, no meteor casts on breakable objects.
    Posted in: Wizard: The Ancient Repositories
  • 1

    posted a message on Discussion: Are the devs out of touch?
    They should have made it where rares are the stat sticks and legendaries are the items that change builds and strictly stuck with this. Rares can roll significantly higher stats than legendaries, but legendaries change your build. That way each slot becomes a more meaningful choice. Do I want more stats here or do I want less stats and a gimmick? The ultimate idea is that if you just put legendaries on every slot, you suffer in stats, so you have to coordinate between rares and legendaries. Right now everyone just puts legendaries/sets everywhere and auto-salvages rares and it's kind of uninspiring.

    All stat stick legendaries need to be reworked to have some build changing idea to it -- ALL OF THEM -- DON'T EVEN LEAVE ONE. In my opinion, EVERY SKILL needs at least ONE skill changing legendary attached to it; and the idea needs to be impactful, synergistic, and build altering if at all possible. We need more sets. Every class should have 5+, **MINIMUM**. Focus on making each one like Jade, Marauders, Akkhans. Those are beautiful sets because they synergize so well with other legendaries. KEEP DOING MORE OF THAT.

    The gem changes are really disheartening to hear... I too was looking forward to them; now not so much.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Ramalandi's Gift: Counter-intuitive?
    Quote from Venaliter
    Quote from itirnitii

    I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.

    My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable.
    It's completely logical. You'd reroll the socket slot if you had a Gift on hand, or keep it if you didn't. If you think it's counter intuitive, Diable may not be the game for you.
    How do you not see rolling off a socket, just to add a socket as counter-intuitive?

    Yes. You can choose to just not use a gift on it at all, but it's never going to be end-game quality without five primary stats. Four primary stat items will become the new insta-soul.

    Socket is hands down the worst innate affix roll you can get if you plan on that weapon being end game quality. It doesn't exclude the item from being end game quality if the other three primary stats roll fantastically, but it still is the worst you can get as it innately offers nothing, since you can just roll it away to add a fifth primary to replace it as a new socket instantly.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Ramalandi's Gift: Counter-intuitive?
    Right now getting an innate socket on a weapon is on par with the most desirable and useful stat you can get on a weapon. Without a socket your weapon is junk. By getting an innate socket you can enchant any other stat to whatever you want, making the likelihood of improving your weapon to grand status very favorable. A socket roll does not have a range of power (for example: damage range, damage %, or CDR % fall on a spectrum of rolls where they can roll a high value or a low value); you either have a socket or you don't, and when you do it is best in slot and that affix roll is uncontested at max potential instantaneously.

    While this new item, Ramalandi's Gift, is a great step in the right direction. I feel like it is somewhat counter-intuitive and I have some concerns. To anyone who doesn't know what this item is set to do if unchanged it will add a socket to a weapon basically for free. You get a fifth primary at no cost to the weapons other stats.

    My first concern stems from the fact that having an innate socket on a weapon will go from being the most favorable primary stat it can roll to the absolute least favorable. You will never want an innate socket on your weapon as you will just want to reroll it away and use Ramalandi's Gift to replace it for free, meaning the socket roll itself has absolutely no intrinsic value and you will wish it could have been anything but a socket so that you got more value out of that affix. You will never gain any practical use out of getting an innate socket on a weapon drop and the innate socket roll has basically been relegated to the status of completely useless.

    This will only cease being a concern if weapons with innate sockets stop rolling altogether after Ramalandi's Gift is implemented (if left unchanged), which hopefully will happen. But, this will be a complete let down for anyone who already has an amazing innate socket weapon already and can't take advantage of the fifth primary they could have instead.

    Please take note of the fact I am not voicing concerns of the idea of adding a socket to a weapon, I think it is a great idea, and it is better than what we already have. But if five primary stat weapons are going to be the new 'it' thing. It should at least be made so that weapons that already have an innate socket (and enchanted another stat as a natural result) can take advantage of this idea and not be left obsolete.

    I'm not quite sure what a solid solution would be, but would be interested in hearing people's thoughts and/or concerns.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Legendary Gems - Only for Ring and Amulets?
    Quote from Draco_Draco

    The point is Shaggy, and I'll keep repeating that untill you understand:
    As long as the legendary gem is stronger than the alternative rolls on an item, there is no sacrifice included in the choise. You keep repeating "You'll have to choose", and "you will have to sacrifice". THERE IS NO CHOISE. THERE IS NO SACRIFICE.
    Just like there is no choise between getting elemental damage or not on your bracers, or sockets or not in your chest, there will be no choise in jewellery.
    If legendary gems become as powerfull as actual legendary affixes and enables stronger builds, then sockets in jewellery becomes mandatory. Where's the fun in that? Say that a ring provides you with a 10% dmg boost due to crit chance on it. Let's say a legendary gem provides a 15% boost. There is no choise, no risk, and no reward associated with picking the legendary gem. It's always going to either be a stronger choise (no sacrifice, boring) or a weaker choise (nothing changes, boring). It doesn't matter which item you pick. I just personally think it's a wasted chance to look at some of the pieces that's usually seen as more "Boring" because they don't bring any major stats to the picture (boots, shoulders, legs, chest).

    Gonna try and TL;DR this aswell to try and make sure I get the point across:

    1: If legendary gem is all-powerfull, it does not matter where you put it. It will always be the choise over anything.
    2: If 1 is true, why put it on items that already have decent affixes to pick from instead of boring ones. To give us less crit? Why? Legendary gem is stronger anyway. If crit is 10% and legendary gem is 15%, we still become stronger. Doesn't matter we lost dps one place if we gained it the other. End result is the same.





    As for your whole "they'd just replace normal gems" - so what? nothing more boring than normal gems, really. Pick up a ton, spend 9M on one, never ever lose it, and just chug all mainstat in your gear. How is chugging legendary gems in there any less fun? I really don't get it. As if it's any better to go "ILL JUST ROLL SOCKETS ON ALL MY JEWELLERY AND THROW GEMS IN THERE HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FUN".


    Personally, I'd much, MUCH rather that they tied legendary gems to the paragon system. Allow one legendary gem to be slotted on your character anywhere you'd like per 100 paragon levels (an actual bonus rather than those derpy portraits). Progressively making the players characters stronger and unlocking builds ("well, if you want to play Derpmode V3 Turrethunter, you'll need atleast 300 paragon and these 3 legendary gems for their bonuses").
    Your attacking a point Shaggy is not making. To me, Shaggy is aware that the best stats to have on an amulet will just switch to the new criteria and his argument is not an attempt to try to refute this.

    What his argument is about is the fact that sockets on different equipment have different value. 3 sockets on a chest armor is one primary stat, while on a ring or amulet it is only 1 socket for 1 primary stat. Also, amulets primary stats are more valuable than chest armors because chest armor cannot roll elemental damage, 100% CD, and 10% CC. This is what his argument is about, and it is strictly arguing against putting these legendary gems into anything but jewelry.

    The "sacrifice" and "choice" he is talking about is not that you have to sacrifice a great stat on an amulet to instead put this gem in (which will become the new BiS for everyone). The sacrifice is that you can't just stick it into a piece of chest armor instead and only lose 1/3rd of a primary stat, which isn't even that detrimental on a piece of chest armor as opposed to an amulet to begin with.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on 8 hours maintenance and no patch?! wtF?
    When you're patching such a large intricate game such as the games Blizzard deals with on such a mass scale I'd imagine you'd want to patch a large number of things as infrequently as possible. All patching one minor item at a time does is slow down the entire process. Look at the big picture. You change even the most tiny thing and it can impact a lot of different systems. It's better for them to just play test and release 20 different changes all at once and release them in one big lump sum, then it is to slowly release mini patches that just fix one or two items. Every time the game client changes there is a pandora's box of problems that could go wrong, so doing that as infrequently as possible is the way to go. In the end it takes a lot less effort that can go into other things that we want changed. It sucks to have to wait, but it makes sense to me in the end.

    I have 7040 achievement point (96%) and I am itching badly for them to patch the broken ones, but I understand why it's taking so long. They might already have a fix for them ready to go, but I can see why they might want to release it in 2.1 (or whatever it will be called) with a whole slew of other changes as well.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on How do you guys feel about Bounty and Rifts?
    Right now it's VOTA for essence, Festering > FoM > Crypt (if exists) for experience. There is nothing else.

    At least bounties and rifts are random and offer different sceneries and monsters to fight. Bounties are everywhere in all acts so you can choose which ones you want to do. Not really sure I am understanding what the downside is.

    Monster Density could be a valid complaint, but it has nothing to do specifically with Rifts and Bounties.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Why Can't Unique Armor Have Unique Visual Effects?
    I still want to echo that I think transmog is great to be able to change a legendary that you find ugly into just a regular piece of tiered armor. There are over 10 choices now for each character class as far as those options go. But changing a legendary into another legendary or a non-legendary into a legendary has a duplicity that I personally cannot get behind. Seeing other people running around wearing legendary skins for legendaries they aren't actually utilizing kind of kills the lore aspect for me.

    Not to mention that if each legendary is being given a unique ability, it seems overly deceptive to see another player wearing legendaries when they don't actually have those unique abilities that are supposed to be specifically attributed to said legendaries. It kind of has a disjointed feeling, that I'm sure I will adapt to but won't ever truly feel quite right about. It almost feels like these two new features (transmog and new legendary passives) have a conflict of interest as far as perception goes that I think Blizzard usually tries to avoid but is definitely being overlooked here.

    An example that would apply, if transmog existed now, might be seeing someone using a FireWalkers skin over another set of boots, but not seeing any fire trail being left behind. It just has a blatant mismatch feeling to it that I don't particularly care for. It ruins some of the mystique that these legendaries are supposed to carry in their own individuality. If you thought the Firewalkers were ugly and just wanted to cover them up with the skin of a tier 8 boot skin, no big deal there.

    On the other side of the spectrum, I want to clarify that I'd be fine with Firewalker boots that were covered by a tier 8 boot skin, to still display the fire trail passive effect, because at least you are actually wearing Firewalkers. It's a little deceptive, but at least the effect matches the actual item equipped to the owner. So if I see the trail I know they are Firewalkers underneath the transmog skin. It's deceptive, but it's a deception to a lesser degree that has a clear logical flow that leads to a clear logical outcome solely based upon immediate visual inspection.

    I would have to argue there is a delicate and subtle finesse to this situation that the devs are overlooking.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Transmog Removes Unique Item's Visual Uniqueness/Value
    My feelings for transmog are completely mixed. I like it, but I also hate it.

    I am kind of against the idea of items taking on the skins of legendaries, but not necessarily against making a legendary look like a regular tiered piece of armor.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Travis Day on "Legendaries/set items being soulbound"
    The "use self-control" line of thought is tired. What boundaries Blizzard chooses to enforce in the scope of the multiplayer experience matters to many. It may not matter to certain individuals but it matters to a lot of people in the community what stance Blizzard takes. It matters to many what experience they are going to have in relation to their friends and in relation to the entire community. You can self-impose your own standards, and even if you have the self-control to enforce them on yourself, it can have a psychological toll on your experience if you know all your friends and the community at large are playing a completely different game on a completely different level. For many people that subconscious nagging ruins the experience. It may not be that way for some, but it is that way for many.

    If you take this line of thought further you could just remove all boundaries. Blizzard could just put a FAQ up at the beginning saying that it is a sandbox game and you can impose whatever limits you want to optimize your fun. Add an NPC that creates infinite gold, create an NPC that dupes items for you, increase legendary drop rate to whatever you want it to be. I mean what you choose to do doesn't effect anyone else right? It's all about your fun. If those NPCs ruin your fun show some self-control man!

    But there in lies the problem. What many consider fun is based upon what is happening in the game at large within the community. To dismiss that just because your personal fun isn't being infringed upon is just as selfish in a sense.

    You can keep pushing this "if trading is not fun, then don't trade" rhetoric all day long, but if I am not trading and my friend I play alongside is and he is killing monsters three times faster then me, that affects me. My personal fun has been compromised because I can't ignore that. Him killing faster effects my experience gain and my drops since monsters die quicker to the actions he is partaking in outside my gameplay. The boundaries imposed upon him being inequitable to mine outside of our game together has infringed upon my ability to share a common experience with him in the context of the game at large. For many, that is the fun of the game, the ability to share a common experience with the community imposed by the boundaries of the game itself on everyone mutually.

    Many people care about the structure of the game as it is defined and enforced by Blizzard and want to play a game where everyone in the community is held to the same standard of play. For them, therein lies their personal fun. It enforces a sense of camaraderie that we are all playing the same game with the same limitations. What those limitations are defined at matters immensely.

    I am not using this argument to make a case for whether trading should or shouldn't be allowed. If you want to be able to trade and want to make a case for that in the context of the game, fine. I am all for that. But, please, talk about it in the context of finding loot and feeling a sense of reward in doing so. How do these choices affect everyone and their ability to share a common experience? But don't use that "self-control" argument as if it had any relevance. Boundaries set by Blizzard matters. What people around you are doing in a multiplayer environment matters. It may not matter to you, but if it matters to even just a minority it is still relevant and not dismissible.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.